Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Museums

Hoping For A Better 2014 For The Cleveland Museum

ClevelandWestWingLast night, the Cleveland Museum of Art opened its new west wing galleries (at right), designed by Raphael Vinoly and featuring Chinese, Indian, Southeast Asian, and Himalayan art — thus completing its years-long renovation and expansion. I can’t really be specific on how long it has been — though the museum says eight years — because it seems to me that I first saw models of the plan back in the late ’90s, when the museum was led by the late Bob Bergman (who died in ’99).

The New Year’s Eve  party was a ticketed event (sold out, per the website), so the galleries really open to the public tomorrow, Friday and — nicely — on Saturday with a scholar’s day (which, oddly, includes a scavenger hunt and games as well as serious lectures).

I think we would have heard more about the New Year’s Eve celebration and the subsequent activities nationally had it not been for the unfortunate events earlier this year surrounding the museum’s recently departed director David Franklin.

But never mind: the museum, being led — strangely — by a trustee for the moment, racked up a big series of accomplishments last year, and Franklin must be given credit for most of them, his personal life notwithstanding. In mid-December, the museum listed some (here):

  • 501,314 visitors came to the museum during the 2012-2013 fiscal year — a 39% increase year-over-year and the highest attendance in more than a decade.
  • Key drivers of attendance included the opening of the museum’s 39,000 square foot atrium and the innovative Gallery One, which has won some tech awards.
  • The new north wing galleries opened.
  • The museum started some new programming initiatives, including the MIX at CMA first Friday happy hour series and Second Sundays family day programming.

Despite receiving a recent philanthropy update and the following disclosures about fundraising in the past year, I am pretty sure the museum must still raise a tidy sum to complete its $350 million capital campaign, but on New Year’s Day, I have not even tried to pin down someone at the museum — let’s just say it’s substantial. Still, the release said:

Over this period [the FY], the museum raised nearly $36 million from over 15,000 supporters and 20,000 members. In the first six months of the current fiscal year, which will end on June 30, 2014, overall fundraising has outpaced last year by more than 80%, totaling $24 million. These dollars support all aspects of the museum’s work and allow the museum to maintain a balanced budget. Since July 2012, commitments for Transformation: The Campaign for the Cleveland Museum of Art alone totaled $27 million.

The museum also is to be congratulated for starting the Joseph and Nancy Keithley Institute for Art History, on partnership with Case Western Reserve University. This initiative, designed for curators, scholars, museum directors and academic leaders, reimagines a joint doctoral program that the museum and university developed together over the past few years by stressing an “object-oriented” approach that integrates theory and methodology with intense study of actual pieces of art. It’s funded in part by the Mellon Foundation.

So Cleveland, I hope you have begun a serious search for a new, highly qualified and scholarly director, one who will match your marvelous collection. I wish you a better 2014 than 2013 turned out to be.

Is This The Light At Tunnel’s End For DIA?

RickSnyderThe Detroit Institute of Arts issued a new statement about its predicament a short time ago:

 The Detroit Institute of Arts is pleased that the negotiations around the thoughtful and creative plan initiated by mediators Chief Judge Gerald Rosen and Eugene Driker continue to progress. The positive comments regarding potential state support by Governor Snyder (left) and other lawmakers will continue to provide momentum to the discussions. The DIA is actively engaged in these talks and continues to be optimistic about a positive outcome.

Which sent me looking for some good news from the Governor. About the only thing I could find was a statement from him printed in The Detroit News, which had an editorial board lunch yesterday with Snyder. It printed a summary of his comments, including this one:

On whether the state will contribute to a fund to protect the Detroit Institute of Arts: “It would be much more likely … if it were part of settling the case, if it really said this will wrap things up and not have to worry about a September deadline That’s a different story. I wouldn’t be close-minded to that.

While hardly definitive, that statement is a positive one. If you remember, a state rescue was what I had hoped for when I write my last published article about the DIA-Detroit bankruptcy. My fingers are crossed.

Meantime, I asked the DIA for clarification and will update if there is something more definitive. UPDATE — there’s no need to update; the statement above is what the DIA was referencing.

 

What To Make of The Christie’s Evaluation

Kevyn Orr, Detroit’s emergency manager, held up release of the report made by Christie’s to him yesterday, which totted up the value of works in the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts that were purchased by the city: he was testifying in court, his office said, and he wanted to review it before release. He needn’t have bothered. I got it this morning, reviewed it and found virtually no surprises. The valuations were all there, in ranges, as promised — for the fair market value, not auction estimates.

vanEyckIn some cases, contrary to previous reporting in respected publications — e.g., see this article — auction estimates would likely be less, not more. That’s the way the game is played. (A lower price encourages bidding.)

Here’s the link to the final report of values.

And here is Christie’s word of caution:

In order to determine the appraised value, Christie’s appraisers used the “market data approach,” which compares the subject work to similar works and makes appropriate adjustments. The lower number in the value range for each work we appraised represents a conservative price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller in the relevant marketplace, and the higher number in the range represents the most advantageous price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller in the relevant marketplace. Christie’s has made no assumptions about the sale process, nor did we take into consideration any commissions, buyer’s premiums, or potential financial agreement between the buyer, seller and/or venue that would affect the final price realized. We have not assumed any volume discounts.

In other words, the Christie’s document is not gospel — it does not guarantees any of these prices. Putting all of these works on the block at one time would likely be too much for the market to swallow (the air gets thin — as do the bidders — above a certain figure, especially in categories that are not contemporary).

If anything, as I wrote last week, this report, and the options for monetizing the collection without selling, should lower Orr’s expectations, not raise or solidify his stated desire to get $500 million in a “contribution” from the DIA.

Here’s how the Detroit papers are covering this development: The Free Press article and the Detroit News article. One very sad thing: the comments on press articles continue to show outright and total misunderstanding of the issues, the values, the alternatives.

Photo Credit: Van Eyck’s St. Jerome, estimated at $4 million to $6 million

That $142.4 Million Bacon Is Going To Portland!

On loan, of course — not for keeps. Three Studies of Lucian Freud by Francis Bacon will go on view at the Portland Art Museum in Oregon on Dec. 21 as part of its Masterworks series.

Bacon-Freud-ChristiesThis is a great coup for Brian Ferriso, the PAM director, who’s been a big proponent of one-work exhibitions (as have I). According to Ferriso, “As soon as the triptych sold, I asked my chief curator [Bruce Guenther] to see if he could identify the buyer, which he did and subsequently asked to show it.  We have worked with and borrowed from this lender in the past.”

The two had been looking for a modern or contemporary work to present in it ongoing series, which brings “singular masterpieces to Portland,” and had previously included  Raphael’s portrait La Velata, Titian’s La Bella and Thomas Moran’s Shoshone Falls. 

Guenther, in the press release, said of the painting, “Bacon captures the spirit of Freud, rendering him as a tightly coiled mass of energy, ready to spring from the caned bentwood chair positioned in front of a brass bed. The expressive, volatile brushwork that delineates Freud’s hands and face acts as a brilliant foil to the smooth rendering of the highly abstracted objects and space.”

When the painting sold in November at Christie’s, it set the record for the most expensive work of art ever sold at auction. As The Wall Street Journal told the tale:

When the Bacon came up for bid about 20 minutes into the sale, at least four collectors took the bait. New York dealer Larry Gagosian and Korean collector and dealer Hong Gyu Shin bid in the saleroom against telephone bidders from the U.S. and China. Seconds into the bidding, Mr. Hong tried to spook his competition by lobbing a $100 million bid, but the telephone bidders remained undaunted and in the end, he bowed out at $126 million. New York dealer Bill Acquavella, bidding by telephone on behalf of a client, placed the winning bid of $127 million, or $142.4 million with Christie’s commission.

Part of the attraction stemmed from its history: The work was first shown in Italy and then at the Grand Palais in Paris, in 1971-72, in a Bacon retrospective. Then it was separated into three paintings, sold to three collectors, and went out of public view for more than 15 years — when an Italian collector reunited them in the 1990s. He/she put it up for sale this fall. “With this exhibition, this magnificent work comes into public view for a limited time before returning to a private collection,” the press release says.

Who bought it? I thought I’d seen some conjecture, but when I looked for it online now, I couldn’t find it. But the loan suggests it’s someone in the Northwest, and maybe word will leak soon. 

UPDATE: Readers tell me that the conjectured buyers were either the Quataris or Steve Wynn, according to Page Six… doesn’t look like either, does it?

UPDATE 2: Another source tells me that Bruce Guenther is close to Eli Broad and has borrowed works from him in the past. That would be interesting, because Broad is not known for paying top dollar.

“Trunk Show” — A Deplorable Development At the Met — CORRECTED AND UPDATED

The other day, a friend forwarded to me an email he had received from the Metropolitan Museum* — he was disgusted and I was horrified. It was an invitation sent via Paperless Post to a “Trunk Show” in the Met’s Balcony Lounge of “a unique jewelry collection” designed by Joel Alexander Rosenthal “to complement the exhibition of his jewels” that have been on view at the Met since Nov. 20 — the one called Jewels by JAR.  Here’s the invitation:

b4e6f578d189f8782b3ce76e8caf899d-20-16812687This trunk show, as you can see, will take place next Tuesday, Dec. 17, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. There is, as my friend pointed out, no information in the invitation of where or to whom any proceeds raised by the trunk show will be going. If it were a benefit for the Met, I am sure it would have been disclosed. That suggests that none or a very small portion of the proceeds will go to the Met.

UPDATE: It turns out that the proceeds DO go to the Met. “Maybe the language is not as clear as it could be,” said a Met spokeswoman to me in a call.

No kidding.

So, I am sorry I wrote that it would have been disclosed, above, if that were the case. I should have said it SHOULD have been disclosed, as I am not the only one who misread the invitation.

This development — using Met space for commercial activity – is deplorable. Still, I stand by what I said about exhibition itself — which I have not seen, but have certainly heard about.  Although it was said to be curated by Jane Adlin, an associate curator, I’m told by a pretty reliable source that Rosenthal selected the 400 pieces in the exhibition. Although most come from “private collections,” it’s not hard to see that some of them are probably for sale too. It’s too commercial for my taste.

I do recall another jewelry exhibition at which the Met sold — in its museum shop — high-end jewelry related to the show for a cut of the proceeds. This trunk show takes it a step further, and an odious one.

It JAR makes one wonder about the direction the Met is going: it used to set standards that other, less well-funded museums tried to follow. Now it’s down there with the worst of them.

In the press release, the Met called the JAR exhibition “the first retrospective in the United States of his work and the first retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum devoted to a contemporary artist of gems.” That’s nothing to crow about. Let’s hope — if this is a typical example — that it will be the last. As for the trunk show, the invitations should be resent with clarification. it should be stopped.

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Met.